The Crumbling World Order: A Wake-Up Call

The rules-based international order is dying. This isn't alarmism; it's a cold, hard fact staring us in the face. From Russia's brazen invasion of Ukraine to China's aggressive posturing in the South China Sea, from Israel's actions in Gaza to the erosion of democratic norms worldwide, the pillars of the post-World War II order are crumbling before our eyes.

Let's cut through the diplomatic niceties and face reality. We're witnessing a blatant disregard for international norms and laws on multiple fronts. These aren't isolated incidents. They represent a systemic breakdown of the very principles that have underpinned global stability for decades.

The United States, long the self-proclaimed guardian of this order, has utterly failed in its role. Its selective application of international law and its unwavering support for allies regardless of their actions have exposed the hypocrisy at the heart of the system. The Global South, already sceptical of Western intentions, now sees the rules-based order for what it is and was: a thinly veiled instrument of Western hegemony.

International institutions are paralysed. The UN Security Council is an anachronistic joke, unable to act on any major conflict due to the veto power of its permanent members. The World Trade Organisation is struggling to remain relevant in an era of increasing economic nationalism. Even NATO and the EU are facing internal strains that threaten their cohesion.

This breakdown isn't happening in a vacuum. And the rules-based international order is not exclusively being "undone" by the bad actors like Russia and China. It's the result of decades of hypocrisy, failed policies, and a refusal to adapt to changing global realities. The West has consistently applied international law selectively, undermining its own credibility as a defender of the rules-based order.

Exceptionalist support of countries like Israel flagranlty disregarding international law while sanctioning others for doing so, speaks loudly to those who also might wish to breach international law. The last 70 years has led us to a place where the bar has been set at the Nike level: "just do it". We have literally undone it all ourselves. Consider numerous other examples such as the Iraq War, launched without UN Security Council approval and based on false pretences. Or the US's refusal to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over its citizens.

These actions have eroded trust in the international system and emboldened other powers to flout the rules when it suits them. Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, China's militarisation of the South China Sea and constant threats against Taiwan, and Turkey's interventions in Syria, are all symptoms of this broader trend.

The Global South has taken note. Countries that have long chafed under what they perceive as Western-dominated international institutions are now actively seeking alternatives. The rise of organisations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation reflects this shift away from Western-led multilateralism. It is the devolution of global ordering to a more multipolar model. Another model it must be pointed out, that cannot exist without rules.

Xi Jinping’s call for a multipolar world order cannot succeed without a commitment to clear rules. The current international system is failing because powerful nations, including China, often disregard the norms they claim to uphold. A multipolar world without shared rules risks becoming a chaotic contest of dominance, leaving smaller nations vulnerable. If China seeks to lead in this vision, it must demonstrate respect for international laws on trade, human rights, and sovereignty. True multipolarity requires cooperation, transparency, and the strengthening of multilateral institutions—not coercion or power politics. Without these, a multipolar world will merely replicate the imbalances it aims to replace, fostering instability rather than balance.

We're seeing the emergence of a more multipolar world, with competing regional orders. The collaboration between ideological enemies - like China and Russia - echoes historical moments that have preceded major global conflicts.

This brings us to the chilling historical parallel: the interwar period of 1919-1939. The League of Nations, much like today's international institutions, proved impotent in the face of aggressive powers. The system of collective security collapsed, leading to a period of intense conflict and ultimately, to World War II.

Are we headed down a similar path? The signs are ominous. The current global situation bears striking similarities to the 1930s:

·         Rising authoritarianism, populism, jingoism, and nationalism in major powers

·         Economic instability and inequality fuelling populist movements

·         Weakening of international institutions and norms

·         Aggressive territorial claims and military buildups

·         Alliances forming based on expediency rather than shared values

What's next? If history is any guide, we're likely heading towards a period of increased instability, aggression, and potentially, large-scale conflict. The only check on violence will be more violence. We're entering an era where raw power, not international law, will dictate global affairs.

This isn't just about geopolitics. The breakdown of the international order has real-world consequences for ordinary people. It means more wars, more refugees, more economic instability, and more human suffering. It means a world where smaller nations are at the mercy of great powers, where international cooperation on global challenges like climate change becomes even more difficult.

But here's the truth: this crisis is largely of our own making. The West's hypocrisy, its failure to reform outdated institutions, and its refusal to truly engage with the concerns of the Global South have all contributed to this moment. We've sown the seeds of our own decline.

To avoid repeating the catastrophic mistakes of the 1930s, we need a radical reassessment of our approach to global order. This isn't about tweaking the existing system. It requires a fundamental rethinking of how we organise international relations.

• First, we need to abandon the notion of Western exceptionalism. The idea that Western powers can flout international law when it suits them while expecting others to adhere to it is not just hypocritical - it's dangerous. It undermines the very foundation of a rules-based order.
• Second, we need to reform international institutions to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The UN Security Council, with its outdated permanent member structure, is a relic of the post-World War II era. It needs to be overhauled to give greater representation to emerging powers and the Global South.
• Third, we need to address the economic inequalities that fuel resentment against the current order. This means reforming international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank to give developing countries a greater say in global economic governance.
• Fourth, we need to recommit to multilateralism and diplomacy. The trend towards unilateralism and "might makes right" diplomacy is a path to global instability. We need to reinvest in diplomatic solutions and international cooperation.
• Fifth, and most critically, we need to apply our principles consistently, even when it's inconvenient or goes against our short-term interests. The selective application of international law has been the greatest undermining factor of the current order.

The alternative to these changes is a Hobbesian world governed by the law of the jungle - a world where “might makes right” and where the strong prey upon the weak. We've been down this road before, and we know where it leads.

The breakdown of the rules-based order isn't just a theoretical concern for diplomats and academics. It's a clear and present danger that threatens global stability and human wellbeing. The parallels with the 1930s should serve as a stark warning of what could lie ahead if we fail to act.

The question now is whether we have the courage and wisdom to choose a different path. The clock is ticking, and the stakes couldn't be higher. The future of global order - and with it, the prospects for peace, prosperity, and human rights - hangs in the balance. It's time to wake up and act before it's too late.